June 2, 2010

Green tea party: will Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or other professed liberty lovers support ending pot prohibition in California?

This piece from the Los Angeles Times, which is headlined "California voters back pot legalization, but support is shaky," provides some very interesting data on very early polling concerning the marijuana ballot initiative to be decided by California voters this November. Here are some excerpts from the article, after which I will explain the reason for the question in the title of this post:

California voters, by a modest margin, think they should be allowed to grow and consume marijuana, according to a new poll that also found more than 1 in 3 voters had tried pot and more than 1 in 10 had lit up in the past year.

The Los Angeles Times/USC poll [full details and results here] found that voters back the marijuana legalization measure on the November ballot, 49% to 41%, with 10% uncertain about it. But support for the initiative is unstable, with one-third of the supporters saying they favor it only "somewhat."

"The good news for proponents is that they are starting off with a decent lead. The good news for the opposition is that initiatives that start off at less than 50% in the polls usually have a hard time," said Dan Schnur, director of USC's Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics.

The poll also points to a demographic group that is likely to play a key role -- women, particularly those who are married. Men favor legalization, but women are split. Among married women, 49% reject the measure while 40% are in favor of the initiative....

Both sides are likely to target mothers, Schnur said. The measure's backers, for example, could argue that legalization would bring more tax money for schools, while opponents could insist that it would put children at risk. The poll found voters closely divided on those arguments.

The measure's supporters say marijuana taxes could raise more than a billion dollars in revenue; opponents dispute that. Among voters, 42% believe that estimate and 38% think it is wildly exaggerated.

The November initiative authorizes cities and counties, but not the state, to legalize and tax sales. In Los Angeles County, the epicenter of the Green Rush with more than 600 medical marijuana dispensaries, voters are most inclined to see pot taxes as a way to plug holes in local and state budgets.

Voters were also split over whether legalized marijuana would worsen social problems, such as increasing crime and triggering higher marijuana use among teenagers. Those concerns appear to have much more potency with voters than the debate over tax revenues. Among those who oppose the initiative, 83% think it would add to the state's social woes; 55% of married women also believe that....

Attitudes toward legalization diverge sharply by age, with support much higher among younger voters.... Chris Donnelly, a 25-year-old substitute teacher from San Diego, has never touched pot but strongly favors the initiative and believes it could support schools. "It wouldn't bother me one bit if marijuana were legal," the unaffiliated voter said. "I don't think it's any more harmful than alcohol."

The poll also offers an unusually detailed look at who is using marijuana in California. Among those surveyed, 37% of voters said they had tried pot -- a figure roughly consistent with federal surveys of drug use -- and that group strongly supports the initiative. The 11% who had used marijuana in the last year favored legalization by a landslide, 82%. By contrast, the 57% of voters who said they have never used marijuana oppose the initiative.

Though certain types of voters are more likely to light up, marijuana use cuts across all demographic slices, reaching beyond the cliches of skateboarders and aging hippies. A matchup in the governor's race between Democrat Jerry Brown, who governed the state in the 1970s, and Republican Meg Whitman, the former EBay executive, clearly illustrates this. Voters who have tried marijuana make up 45% of Brown's supporters, and 37% of Whitman's. But both candidates oppose legalization.

The question in the title of this post is inspired in large part because I strongly believe that the folks behind the tea party movement, along with sympathetic media pundits and political celebrities like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, could have a critical role to play in the passage (or rejection) of the marijuana legalization measure going before California voters this November. And because this ballot initiative could be a critical turning point in the now decades-old "war on drugs" and drug sentencing policy, this issue is one of the prime 2010 election stories I will be watching especially closely

I am hopeful that the libertarian, small-government wing of the tea party movement will get behind the California marijuana decriminalization ballot initiative. My instinct is that folks who are truly and deeply committed to the concept of liberty — as is professed by those folks at Liberty Central who claim a commitment to "Founding Principles" of "limited government, individual liberty, free enterprise, ... and personal responsibility" — should be at least somewhat sympathetic to the decriminalization measure going before California voters this November. Especially important in this context is not only that decriminalization bill will help allow individuals be free to market and consume a particular plant, but also that the initiative is about prioritizing local control over big central government by merely authorizing (but not requiring) cities and counties to legalize and tax sales of marijuana.

Notably, both Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have stated that they have smoked marijuana; the LA Times poll thus suggests that they are in the demographic group more likely to be supportive of decriminalization. Beck often claims to be a libertarian, and he has previously been at least willing to promote a candid (and somewhat serious) discussion about whether pot prohibition does more harm than good (as evidenced in videos here and here).

Palin, as noted here, apparently smoked pot when it was still legal to do so in Alaska. Palin thus can perhaps help to debunk the common "reefer madness" claims that social problems will get much worse if pot is decriminalized. Notably, in one of Palin's recent Facebook postings, which expresses support for a new GOP Senate candidate in Alaska, asserts that "the greatness of our country is grounded in the founding principles of limited constitutional government and individual freedom." Big federal and state government efforts to control through criminalization the growing and sale of certain plants does not seem in accord with these founding principles.

Especially if and when Beck or Palin or other folks often associated with the tea party movement show up in California over the next few months, I hope some serious reporters have the sense to ask them some serious questions about the marijuana initiative going before California voters this November. Perhaps I am wrong to think there is a natural link between tea-party principles and marijuana decriminalization, and I would like to hear from an array of folks with tea-party instincts about how liberty and small government issues intersect in the criminal justice context.

Expecting consistent principles from a professional comedian like Beck and a airhead like Palin, let alone from their mouth-breathing, tea-bagging customers, is more than wishful thinking -- it's magical thinking.

You might as well hope for family planning support from the Archbishop.

Posted by: Ferris Bueller | Jun 2, 2010 4:01:16 PM

The evidence is pretty conclusive at this point that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol, and in fact may have some benefits when used appropriately. Nondangerous substances, activities, etc. should not be criminalized. To be consistent with their views, Palin and Beck should support decriminalization--which is precisely why they won't.

Posted by: Res ipsa | Jun 2, 2010 4:01:40 PM

"The evidence is pretty conclusive at this point that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol"

Marijuana is no more dangerous than fast food, let alone alcohol.

Posted by: JC | Jun 2, 2010 4:29:36 PM

You either have to legalize marijuana, have tobacco companies grow it, along with jobs and taxes, or you have to ban alcohol and cigarettes, and save a third of health care costs or about $700 billion. These are 1000 times more harmful if the death count is an indicator of dangerousness.

The lawyer hierarchy is so stupid, it chooses neither, but does choose the worst possible choice. Ban marijuana. Legalize alcohol and cigarettes, and kill 500,000 people a year, in middle age, at the peak of productivity and responsibility. Do not collect taxes. Do not defund drug cartels and narcoterrorists.

Most of these members of the lawyer hierarchy graduated from Harvard or Yale Law Schools, no? Something terrible, some horrible process takes people at those two schools with IQ of 300 and turns them into cult dumbasses.

Alcohol beverages can be enjoyed in moderation in a variety of social venues w/o harm to society or the individual. In fact, most alcohol is consumed this way. Wine and beer have medicinal qualities in moderation.

Marijuana is more dangerous because it results in a quicker and more direct high. Moreover, the deleterious effect on the psyche-with the attendant loss of ambition and discipline has never been analyzed.

America is taking on water in this global economy as it is-more prevalent use of marijuana will only exacerbate the problem.

Posted by: mjs | Jun 2, 2010 5:47:52 PM

"Marijuana is more dangerous because it results in a quicker and more direct high."

You think a marijuana high is inherently dangerous?

Posted by: JC | Jun 2, 2010 6:38:36 PM

mjs--Marijuana is the same way. Research suggests that people who use marijuana sparingly have more satisfying sex lives, and that limited usage prevents certain types of cancer. This aside from the growing research suggesting that marijuana can be used to treat glaucoma and other types of terminal disease.

Further, there is no empirical evidence--and, from my experience, no anecdotal evidence--showing that an occasional joint leads to loss of ambition and discipline. True, regular users often lose ambition and control--but so alcoholics, as well as users of prescription cough syrup or pain pills even for legitimate purposes.

I simply cannot accept that marijuana is so terrible as to merit legal sanction. Frequent smoking may be a dumb choice, just like showing up to work hung over is a dumb choice (I'm assuming we've all done that at some point?)--but that doesn't mean we should be criminally punishing it.

Posted by: Res ipsa | Jun 2, 2010 6:48:44 PM

So let's legalize meth too.

What? Not so fast? Meth is much more dangerous?

Right; it is more dangerous. But that is exactly the argument libertarians CANNOT USE to justify criminalizing meth but decriminalizing pot: The whole point of the libertarian theme is that it is up to the individual, not the state, to determine what is "too dangerous" to put into your own body.

So upon what principled basis do those adopting the libertarian argument for legalizing pot decline to be equally enthusiastic about legalizing meth?

They have to choose between only two responses: (1) We acknowledge the state can punish substances THE STATE deems too harmful (in which case they have abandoned their main and most appealing theme, and are thrown back on conventional arguments about pot's ill effects); or (2) We think meth should also be legalized (in which case they have so far removed themselves from mainstream thinking as to become irrelevant).

So which is it?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 2, 2010 7:16:34 PM

isn't pot use already de facto legal if you are white and middle or upper class?

any mother worried about legal marijuana being more assessible to teenagers than illegal marijuana would be the rare mother who never was a teenager herself and therefore not aware that illegal marijuana is about as difficult to obtain as a candy bar - probably the same ones who think that "absidance only" sex education is effective even after having theri teenaged daughter come home pregnant (in other words, mothers like sarah palin). my view is that if anything having marijuana legal will lower its appeal to teenagers ;)

ginny :)

Posted by: virginia | Jun 2, 2010 7:56:05 PM

"So let's legalize meth too.

What? Not so fast? Meth is much more dangerous?

Right; it is more dangerous. But that is exactly the argument libertarians CANNOT USE to justify criminalizing meth but decriminalizing pot: The whole point of the libertarian theme is that it is up to the individual, not the state, to determine what is "too dangerous" to put into your own body.

So upon what principled basis do those adopting the libertarian argument for legalizing pot decline to be equally enthusiastic about legalizing meth?

They have to choose between only two responses: (1) We acknowledge the state can punish substances THE STATE deems too harmful (in which case they have abandoned their main and most appealing theme, and are thrown back on conventional arguments about pot's ill effects); or (2) We think meth should also be legalized (in which case they have so far removed themselves from mainstream thinking as to become irrelevant)."

Nonsense. The comparative harmfulness of a particular substance is obviously a relevant factor in determining whether or not the substance should be legal for recreational use, and the government has every right to outlaw substances which are, in fact, dangerous. The point is that when the government has obviously made a mistake in outlawing a particular substance which poses no serious threat to society (i.e., marijuana), the law should be changed. Contemporary marijuana prohibition has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with public health or public safety. The primary reason that marijuana is illegal here in the year 2010 is that social conservatives believe that smoking marijuana is such an inherently immoral thing to do that no one should be allowed to do it. That is it, cut and dry (no pun intended).

Posted by: JC | Jun 2, 2010 8:07:19 PM

If and when there is evidence to suggest that any particular food/drug --- call it trans fat or meth or viagra or Red Bull or mary jane --- can be used as safely as alcohol and can be reasonably regulated as well as tobacco, I would also call for legalization (along with lots of taxing as with alcohol and tobacco and gambling and so on). Indeed, there are lots of reasons to suspect that firearms (and gasoline) are significantly more dangerous to health than any common foods/drugs, but we generally do not want the state to categorically prohibit these items that people want because we create a more harmful black market than the harms of having these products legal and subject to reasonable regulation.

So, Bill, do you favor all categorical restrictions on liberty based on collective state assessments of harm or do you consider common food/drugs to be uniquely a subject for such categorical restrictions? In other words, I want to know whether do you favor a complete commie/nanny state or only a partial one in this regard. So which is it ?

Posted by: Doug B. | Jun 2, 2010 8:45:09 PM

It is time to legalize Marijuana. I hope the California voters pave the way for the rest of us.

Posted by: Anon | Jun 2, 2010 9:26:47 PM

Doug --

"So, Bill, do you favor all categorical restrictions on liberty based on collective state assessments of harm or do you consider common food/drugs to be uniquely a subject for such categorical restrictions?"

I accept, while reserving the right to make contrary arguments, categorical restrictions on liberty based on a democratically enacted and Constitutional assessment by our elected representatives that such restrictions advance the public good. The CSA is one such restriction, enacted by an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress and supported by, among others, every succeeding Congress and the current President. Not to mention that a majority of Americans are with me, according to the following polls: AP-CNBC Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. April 7-12, 2010; CBS News Poll. March 29-April 1, 2010. N=858 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3; Pew Research Center survey. March 10-14, 2010. N=1,500 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3; ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Jan. 12-15, 2010. N=1,083 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5; Gallup Poll. Oct. 1-4, 2009. Adults nationwide. I would note that the first four listed polls were taken this year, not in the distant past.

That the majority agrees with me does not make me right. But it puts the skids under your apparent position that I am some outlier statist. (I am sufficiently statist, however, that I'm going to pay Obama's tax increases even though I disagree with them. You know, the rule of law, that sort of thing).

"In other words, I want to know whether do you favor a complete commie/nanny state or only a partial one in this regard. So which is it?"

As you correctly imply, I beat my wife too.

C'mon Doug, you know I've been doing debates way too long to fall for a question like that. But, while we're at it, I actually WOULD like to know whether your pal John Conyers, before whose Committee you have testified, will, at your urging, be bringing up a bill to repeal the CSA. Think Nancy is going to go with that one? Ha!

P.S. One reason I love your blog is that I get to take majority positions, on drugs, imprisonment and the death penalty, and get plastered as a Nazi for doing so. It's the oddest form of flattery I've ever encountered.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 2, 2010 9:49:31 PM

I trust you realize I was just having fun poking you, Bill, and I like that you cite your agreement with Conyers and Pelosi in response.

Posted by: Doug B. | Jun 2, 2010 11:52:04 PM

I love this article. There aren’t many posts that explain the subject matter.

You're still having fun. Good for you! Next time you're up on the Hill, tell Conyers and Pelosi "hi" for me. I probably won't be up there for a while; the minority party doesn't get as many witnesses at these hearings, so I expect to be left on the editing room floor. Until January.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 3, 2010 8:01:37 AM

Bill, Not having to go up to the Hill and listen to a mental midget like Hank Johnson attempt to form a simple question (and fail) is a PLUS, not a MINUS.

Those hearings only result in two things: pointless sound-bites and blisters on your keister.

Posted by: Ferris Bueller | Jun 3, 2010 9:24:09 AM

Oh, and you are still wrong about the marijuanas, Bill. The logically consistent position is to lump pot with alcohol and tabaccy, not with meth. As I said before, your "hold-the-line, slippery-slope" line of argument does real harm to keeping really dangerous substances (and the attendant organized crime element) controlled -- not the other way round. By continually insisting that pot has deleterious effects that it simply, and empirically, does not have, or suggesting that floodgates of eye-ball injected heroin will necessarily follow the California ballot, you cheapen the substantial arguments to be made against decriminalizing or legalizing most controlled substances.

Posted by: Ferris Bueller | Jun 3, 2010 9:31:14 AM

Ferris --

There is no realistic prospect that anything but marijuana will be legalized no matter what I say. Marijuana enjoys an undeserved but nonetheless special and nostalgic status among the ruling generation. That cannot be said of any other drug.

Most of the time, I have noticed, opposing solons don't ask any questions of opposing witnesses at these hearings, out of a dim but still adequate awareness that the witness is an expert who knows the subject matter better than you do, and will turn you into a pretzel in ten seconds once you start debating him.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 3, 2010 12:05:25 PM

Bill, you say marijuana's status is "undeserved." I disagree. Take a hit. Relax with your gal. Have some munchies nearby. Get romantic. For a couple of hours, life will slow down and then pick up, and all is well with the world. Just don't drive, and don't try to write poetry.

Posted by: anon13 | Jun 3, 2010 1:04:11 PM

I am sufficiently statist, however, that I'm going to pay Obama's tax increases even though I disagree with them.

Man, I wish I made over $250,000. Must be nice.

Posted by: Red Statist | Jun 3, 2010 1:47:59 PM

Bill Otis: greetings. you state there is no realistic possibility of drugs other than marijuana being leglized. I agree--at least for now. But don't you agree that the "war on drugs" is a catastrphic failure? How do you respond to the following arguments by Evan Wood reported by CNN?

"Evan Wood is the founder of the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy; the director of the Urban Health Program at the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and associate professor in the Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia.

(CNN) -- The news of intense drug-related violence out of Jamaica is shocking and dreadful but entirely predictable. Wherever the war on drugs touches down, death and destruction result. A recent target is Kingston, Jamaica. When law enforcement attempted to smoke out Christopher "Dudus" Coke, wanted in the U.S. for conspiracy to distribute marijuana and cocaine and to traffic in firearms, scores of people died in the urban warfare. The death toll reached 73 civilians as Jamaicans were caught in the crossfire between police, soldiers and armed thugs.
Rival drug gangs used the confusion to eliminate their enemies and further ratchet up the violence. Coke has since agreed to surrender to officials in New York, because he "feels it is in his best interest to be taken to the U.S. rather than to a Jamaican jail," sources told the Jamaican Observer, but not before scores of people died
Given that the scenes of violence between rival drug gangs are so common, people often fail to consider the factors that fuel this violence. The reality is that Jamaicans are just the latest victims in a misguided and expensive war that has taken countless thousands of lives, from the streets of New York to the slums and shantytowns of Colombia, Mexico and other third-world nations.
When law enforcement attempted to smoke out Christopher "Dudus" Coke ... scores of people died in the urban warfare.

In more than four decades since former U.S. President Nixon first declared America's "war on drugs," the battles against spreading disease, increasing violence and the ongoing destruction of families and neighborhoods have been lost. Mexico, a country all too familiar with violence as a way of life, is today a stark example of how crackdowns on drug cartels by American and local law enforcement agencies have utterly failed. The horrible drug-related violence in Mexico was intensified by President Felipe Calderón, with strong U.S. support. This crackdown has resulted in about 23,000 drug-related deaths across the country since 2006. The bloodiest war has been fought in Juárez, a besieged city of 1.3 million on the U.S. border, where 5,100 people have been killed since 2008. The global drug war has created a massive illicit market with an estimated annual value of $320 billion. In April, the newly created International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, of which I am founder, released a review of every English-language study to examine the link between drug law enforcement and violence. The review clearly demonstrates that the astronomical profits created by drug prohibition drive organized crime and its related violence. Several studies included in the report suggested that law enforcement's removal of key players from the drug trade, such as Christopher Coke, only creates power vacuums that lead to violent and deadly competition. Many victims are not involved in the drug trade, as today's civilian deaths in Mexico, the U.S. and Kingston's slums illustrate. The global drug war has created a massive illicit market with an estimated annual value of $320 billion.

The war on drugs has generated a lucrative, cash-rich industry that has -- not surprisingly -- lured poverty-stricken participants from throughout the impoverished third world. In West Africa, entire countries, such as Guinea-Bissau, are at risk of becoming "narco-states" as Colombian cocaine traffickers employ West African trade routes to distribute cocaine into destination markets in Europe, Russia and the Middle East. Estimates now suggest that 27 percent of all cocaine destined for Europe is transited through West Africa and is worth more than $1.8 billion annually wholesale -- and as much as 10 times that amount at the retail level. Illicit drugs are big business, with the influence and global reach that goes along the ability to create widespread wealth.
Another conclusion of the review was the clear evidence that drug law enforcement has failed to reduce the availability of illegal drugs. From a scientific perspective, we must accept that law enforcement will never meaningfully reduce the flow of drugs. Economists know that the drug seizures we see over and over again as part of police photo ops have the perverse effect of making it that much more profitable for someone else to sell drugs. The laws of supply and demand have simply overwhelmed police efforts. With young people reporting that obtaining illicit drugs is easier than getting alcohol or tobacco, the situation could not get much worse.
Strong scientific evidence points to the effectiveness of alternative regulatory models established in Portugal, the Netherlands and Switzerland to counter the disastrous consequences of illicit drug use and drug policies.

The Cato Institute, a respected U.S. think tank, has released a report on alternative drug policies. Several years ago, Portugal parted ways with the U.S. and decriminalized all drugs so that resources could focus on prevention and treatment of drug use. The report shows Portugal's policies have dramatically reduced HIV rates as drug addiction has been viewed as a health, rather than criminal justice, problem. In addition, Portugal now has the lowest rates of marijuana use in the European Union, with experts suggesting that the health focus has taken some of the glamour out of illegal drugs. Similarly, the de facto regulation of marijuana in the Netherlands and distribution through licensed coffee shops generates tax revenue for the country rather than profits for organized crime. Interestingly, rates of marijuana use in the Netherlands remain far lower than those in the U.S. Consider this against the backdrop of the mayhem in Mexico, much of which is driven by fighting to control the marijuana export industry.

The American "get tough" approach, although politically popular in certain circles, has failed to achieve its intended objectives: The supply of illicit drugs has increased, the costs of illicit drugs have dropped, and drug purity has risen. The mounting bloodshed in Mexico and the recent mayhem in Jamaica clearly demonstrate that the U.S. is exporting violence, breaking up families and increasing the taxpayer burden to help fight these fruitless battles.
Americans themselves are suffering deeply from these misguided policies. It's time to just say no to the war on drugs and to implement science-based alternative policy models that are proving effective in other parts of the world."

Posted by: Michael R. Levine | Jun 3, 2010 1:53:21 PM

I'm still trying to reconcile the notion pot stunts ambition with evidence the last three presidents smoked it.

Posted by: John K | Jun 3, 2010 2:37:23 PM

John K:

Ah, but if their ambition hadn't have been stunted perhaps they all would have got a real job.

Posted by: Ferris Bueller | Jun 3, 2010 3:48:28 PM

Michael R. Levine --

And greetings to you. I have done probably two dozens posts on this blog about the drug war, so forgive me if I pass on doing Number 25. I will make only a few short points: (1) You can't call the drug war a failure unless you know what drug use otherwise would have been; (2) That the drug war is difficult and expensive is simply a truism. The war against crime generally is difficult and expensive, and has hardly produced an end to crime. Does that mean we should give up? (3) That drug dealers engage in so much violence is scarcely a reason to back down to them; indeed, it should be a window on the fact that we are not dealing with otherwise harmless, law-abiding citizens; (4) The only realistic question about the effects of long-term marijuana use is not whether it harms the user, but how much the harm is; and (5) the other countries that have tried legalization are re-thinking (and in some cases re-tooling), on the general theory that, "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time."

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 3, 2010 4:07:25 PM

Red Statist --

Most lawyers in this town with decent resumes make way over $250,000.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 3, 2010 4:09:12 PM

The Harsh Reality of Drug Addiction richardmclaughlin007 — January 18, 2009 — after 11 months of sobriety from drug addiction, in 7 short days this man hits the depths of despair and insanity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuNWCPDrJsM

This video was shot in Vancouvers downtown eastside by the narrator it is quite extreme, It shows how common place and and readily available drugs are and how people can succomb to a extreme physical reaction from lack of sleep, nutrition and dehydration. This video was made for many different reasons, one being educational the other as mentioned earlier it's common place here in Vancouver, in any other city or town in North America this man would have recieved immediate medical attention but here in Vancouver both the police and ambulance just drive by. If you do not belive me come on down and see our little human circus slash "HARM REDUCTION EXPERIMENT"
This man was spotted two hours later sleeping on a concrete curb as his pillow.
Both the narrator and producer of this video have had spent many years struggling with addiction and have spent hard time in Vancouvers "NOTORIOUS" downtown eastside.
Today they have escaped and are clean and sober and now dedicate there lives to those who still suffer from "THE HARSH REALITY OF ADDICTION"

Many victims are not involved in the drug trade, as today's civilian deaths in Mexico, the U.S. and Kingston's slums illustrate. The global drug war has created a massive illicit market with an estimated annual value of $320 billion. Best regards, Mary, CEO of download youtube videos

Some of the Tea Party members also seek to stop environmental destruction. These environmentalists have been called the “Green Tea Party.” Just as green tea is good for human health, green policies are good for the earth’s environmental health.

ALL I CAN SAY IS WOW !!!! RON PAUL 2012...THE LAST TIME I WAS THIS EXCITED ABOUT A POSIBLE PRESIDENT﻿ WAS ROSS PEROT WHO JUST HAPPENED TO BE RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING..I PRAY HISTORY QUITS REPEATING ITSELF

who decides who lives comfortably in this world? In the US, people should decide their own fate by their effort and freedom from government constraints. we're rich because of this idea... any other answer is retrograde politics and destructive to our way of﻿ life. don't envy the results of our republicanism; emulate our founding ideals!

Seriously I don't get why people vote pro that? I mean those people who don't use MJ they wouldn't rush and buy it after it gets legalized. And those people who smoke it while it's being prohibited will not stop it anyway. So I personally think that nothing will change much if they legalize mj.

I'd personally vote for that! I don't see any difference between drunk or stoned people, both them are not sober and bringing harm to their health and bodies. But if we compare drunk people are way more aggressive that the stoned ones so there is a lot to think about.